Feed aggregator

Nach dem Referendum in Dänemark vom 3. Dezember 2015 sind wir uns einig, dass operative Vereinbarungen erforderlich sind, um die negativen Auswirkungen des Ausscheidens Dänemarks aus Europol am 1. Mai 2017 so gering wie möglich zu halten. Dies wird sowohl Dänemark als auch den anderen Ländern der Europäischen Union bei der Bekämpfung der grenzüberschreitenden schweren und organisierten Kriminalität und des internationalen Terrorismus zugutekommen. Die Vereinbarungen müssen auf Dänemark zugeschnitten sein und dürfen keinesfalls einer vollen Mitgliedschaft bei Europol gleichkommen, d. h. sie dürfen weder Zugang zu den Europol-Datenbeständen noch eine volle Beteiligung an der operativen Arbeit und der Datenbank von Europol ermöglichen oder Stimmrechte in den Verwaltungsgremien von Europol verleihen. Sie sollten jedoch eine ausreichende operative Zusammenarbeit, u. a. den Austausch relevanter Daten unter angemessenen Sicherheitsvorkehrungen, gewährleisten. 

Die Vereinbarungen wären an den Verbleib Dänemarks in der Europäischen Union und im Schengen-Raum, an die Verpflichtung Dänemarks, die Richtlinie 2016/680/EU über den Datenschutz in polizeilichen Angelegenheiten bis zum 1. Mai 2017 vollständig in dänisches Recht umzusetzen, sowie an die Zustimmung Dänemarks zur Anwendung der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Union und die Anerkennung der Zuständigkeit des Europäischen Datenschutzbeauftragten gebunden.

Die Kommission und Dänemark werden sich bemühen, das notwendige rechtliche Verfahren so rasch wie möglich einzuleiten, und alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen, wie Kontakte mit den einschlägigen institutionellen Akteuren, zu ergreifen, um sicherzustellen, dass die neuen Vereinbarungen bis zum 1. Mai 2017 oder so bald wie möglich danach in Kraft treten können. Auf diese Weise soll zwischen dem 1. Mai 2017 und dem Inkrafttreten des künftigen operativen Abkommens so wenig Zeit wie möglich verstreichen, um negative Auswirkungen auf die Zusammenarbeit und den Datenaustausch zu minimieren. 

Die einzige Möglichkeit Dänemarks, sich bis zum 1. Mai 2017 uneingeschränkt an der neuen Europol-Verordnung zu beteiligen, besteht darin, das Verfahren nach Protokoll Nr. 22 zum Vertrag über die Europäische Union und zum Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union anzuwenden.

 

Le comité d'éthique britannique a donné son feu vert à la conception d'enfants à partir de l'ADN de trois personnes différentes. Une technique expérimentale destinée à faire barrage à la transmission d'une maladie héréditaire maternelle mais très critiquée par certains responsables qui estiment que c'est une pente dangereuse vers l'eugénisme.

Par la voix de son président, la France a dénoncé les sanctions concernant la dette grecque lors du sommet européen à Bruxelles. Même son de cloche du côté du ministre français de l'Economie et des Finances, Michel Sapin, qui conteste la décision de la présidence de l'Eurogroupe qui souhaite suspendre les mesures d’allégement de la dette grecque.

Zaev gathers Bitola Criminals, Thanks them for their Support Thursday, 15 December 2016   Instead of heading to a scheduled Court appearance where he is criminally charged, SDSM leader Zoran Zaev headed to Bitola to thank local criminals for their election support.   Among the few dozen people gathered, Bitola based media reports the brothers Igor and Vasko Angelovski known for their ties to the undeground were seen. A man nicknamed by locals as „Ukach“ was also seen embracing Zaev. Ukach is known for narcotic dealings, whose brother is currently in jail for transporting illegal substances.   Meanwhile, in Bitola SDSM thugs attacked Jove P (68) known for leading the […]

Mit den Terroranschlägen in Istanbul und Ankara schaden die »Freiheitsfalken« (TAK) der PKK in ihrer Rolle als Maklerin für den Frieden, meint Rayk Hähnlein. Es ist daher an der Zeit, dass die PKK sich deutlich von ihrem Ableger distanziert.

(Own report) - The EU will significantly increase the number of its military interventions. This was one the results of the EU heads of state and government summit meeting, held yesterday in Brussels. The member countries will also intensify cooperation of their armed forces. This coincides with demands repeatedly put forward by the German government during its campaign, launched last summer to promote the militarization of the EU. Recently, after the EU defense ministers, along with other bodies, including the European Parliament, passed several resolutions, the EU Commission published a "Defense Action Plan," which provides for annual expenditures from a "European Defense Fund" of half a billion Euros for weapons research, beginning in the early 2020s. Most recently, the European Parliament called for the EU to upgrade its military to be able to use "its full potential as a world power." The objective, according Hans-Peter Bartels (SPD), Parliamentary Commissioner for the German Armed Forces, is to establish an EU army.

Kanzleramtschef Peter Altmaier hat eine Studie der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung zu Integration und Wahlverhalten von Zuwanderern vorgestellt.

Obwohl etwa ein Fünftel der Menschen in Deutschland eine Zuwanderungsgeschichte hat, gibt es kaum Studien zu Einstellungen von Migranten und Ausländern. Zudem gibt es keine repräsentativen Studien zu Einstellungen und Integration von Muslimen. Die vorliegende Studie soll einen Beitrag leisten, um Forschungslücken zu schließen. Daher hat die Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung mithilfe einer reinen Zufallsauswahl eine repräsentative Umfrage unter Deutschen mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund sowie in Deutschland lebenden Ausländern durchgeführt.

Le vote hier, jeudi 15 décembre 2016, à l’unanimité par les députés du budget général de l’Etat, exercice 2017 n’a pas laissé indifférent Laurent Mètongnon, administrateur des finances et du trésor et Secrétaire général de la Fédération des syndicats des travailleurs de l’administration des Finances (Fésyntra-Finances).

Read more ...

Let me start with Syria. Today I invited the chairman of the local Council in Aleppo to personally address the leaders so that the voice of the people of Aleppo is heard, at least in this symbolic way. To be clear, faced with the brutality of the Syrian regime and its supporters, notably Russia and Iran, we are not as effective as we would like to be. But we are not indifferent to the suffering of the Syrian people. We will exert pressure on other global players who are present in Syria using all available diplomatic channels. The aim is clear: the immediate opening of humanitarian corridors to allow aid into Aleppo, and for civilians to be evacuated safely under neutral, international supervision. There must be full and unrestricted access for all medical personnel and aid workers. The protection of civilians is the absolute priority.

Another point on the agenda was migration. Leaders stressed their commitment to implement the EU-Turkey Statement, which also requires continued efforts from Turkey. High Representative Mogherini reported progress with African countries. For example, our partnership with Niger is reducing the numbers of people using smugglers to get to Libya. But we know that more needs to be done, and so we will discuss Libya and our approach to the Central Mediterranean route at our next informal summit in Malta in February. As for the reform of the common asylum system, Prime Minister Muscat will continue this work under his presidency. The aim will be to achieve consensus.

As regards Ukraine, we did what we could to help save the Association Agreement that has been ratified already by 27 Member States and the European Parliament. We have adopted a legally binding decision of the leaders to facilitate the ratification in the Netherlands. This decision addresses all the concerns expressed by the Dutch voters earlier this year. Now the responsibility lies with the Netherlands. The ratification is important not only for Ukraine, but also for Europe's geopolitical standing and credibility. We are counting on our Dutch colleagues.

Today we also agreed to step up our work on security and defence, in partnership with NATO. It is evident that Europe needs to do more to fulfil our international responsibilities and to protect our own citizens,. We committed to increase cooperation and to allocate more resources to security and defence.

Moving on to Brexit, the EU27 had a short informal meeting where we finalized procedural arrangements and reconfirmed our principles, meaning the indivisibility of the four freedoms, the balance of rights and obligations and the rule "no negotiations without notification". We adopted the organisational structure with the European Council maintaining political control over the process, and the Commission as the Union's negotiator. And Michel Barnier as the Commission's Chief Negotiator.

Finally, let me thank Prime Minister Fico and his team for a very successful and productive presidency. Not only did you host the historic EU27 summit in Bratislava, but thanks to your professionalism you have also succeeded in making a number of promises from Bratislava a reality. To give a few examples, the Council agreement on the Trade Defence Instruments, the Visa Suspension Mechanism and the Schengen Borders Code. So let me conclude by again thanking Robert and the entire Slovak Presidency for a great performance.

Les autorités de la République démocratique du Congo ont, jeudi, demandé une coupure des réseaux sociaux à partir du 18 décembre, soit moins de 48 heures avant la fin du mandat de Joseph Kabila qui, selon la Constitution, ne peut se représenter.

A brit miniszterelnököt nem hívták meg a brexitről szóló munkavacsorára. Törökország a barátunk marad, kvóta-ügyben nincs megegyezés.

A brit miniszterelnököt nem hívták meg a brexitről szóló munkavacsorára. Törökország a barátunk marad, kvóta-ügyben nincs megegyezés.

Az EU28-ak csütörtökön jogilag kötelező érvényű határozatban rögzítették, milyen jogokat nem biztosít Ukrajna számára az EU-val aláírt társulási és szabadkereskedelmi megállapodás. Az EU azt reméli, hogy ez megnyitja az utat az Ukrajnával kötött egyezmények hollandiai ratifikálásához, jóllehet az ellenzék komoly fenntartásokkal fogadta a döntést.

On December 5, the Obama administration released a report outlining the legal and policy frameworks for the president’s use of military force. A Presidential Memorandum accompanying the report directs the National Security Council staff to update and release the report to the public on at least an annual basis.

The report was not designed specifically in response to the incoming Trump administration, but its tone is colored by Trump’s win. In a post-election New Yorker article, President Obama said “I think that if Hillary Clinton had won the election then I’d just turn over the keys. We’d make sure the briefing books were in order and out we go.” Trump’s upset win upended that plan.

The report received brief coverage in the midst of the—wholly justified—media scrutiny of Trump’s executive appointments. Beneath its wonkish veneer, however, the report addresses one of the key concerns surrounding a Trump presidency: the amount of military power that has been centralized in the presidency, which Trump will now inherit, and the opacity with which that power has been exercised by the preceding Republican and Democratic administrations.

The accumulation of presidential prerogative to authorize the use of force outside of Congressional constraints and with limited public disclosure—often through the use of drones—has become an issue of structural governance rather than partisanship. Further, concerns about President-elect Trump’s judgment, temperament, and his campaign pledge to “bomb the hell out of ISIS” bring greater urgency to the issue.

The Obama administration received more criticism on its drone policy from liberals than from conservatives. As drone technology developed and standards for their use in lethal operations remained ad hoc, organizations like the Stimson Center and the New America Foundation aimed to codify how, and by whom, drones were used.

President Obama embraced drones as an effective anti-terror tool that reduced U.S. military footprints in trouble spots. His ability grew to authorize strikes against individuals and groups deemed a threat to America. In Obama’s hands, that power was tempered by a prevailing skepticism about the use of military force. That power now passes to Trump, who has shown a greater openness to the use of force.

The report is an important marker in President Obama’s effort to impact Trump administration policy as he leaves office. Under any administration, the report is a paradox: it is an attempt at transparency that ultimately points to how little can be revealed about the use of military force.

Secrecy still governs national security strategy, both to protect those on the front lines and to ensure the strategy itself has the greatest chance to succeed. The report’s country-by-description of the administration’s use of force is brief and full of legal vagaries (“among other things”, “limited number”, “necessary operations”) that tack around specifics. It adds nothing to descriptions of military operations that mainstream media cannot improve on. It is an academic hat-tip to transparency that reveals little.

The second part of the report, particularly the portion addressing the rules used for targeting and engaging enemy combatants, is far more pertinent. It describes the decision-making procedure regarding the use of lethal force that involves five factors:

• Distinction: targeting combatants and not civilians;
• Proportionality: ensuring civilian losses are not ‘excessive’ in relation to military objectives achieved;
• Necessity: identifying a legitimate military purpose for the use of force;
• Humanity: avoiding injury unnecessary to accomplishing the military objective;
• A robust internal review process.

A review process, while shielded from outside scrutiny in a classified environment, ensures that the decision to use force passes through many hands, each one able to weigh it against the preceding standards. Describing the review, the report reads:

Throughout the military chain of command, commanders, advised by trained and experienced staffs—including intelligence officers, operations officers, and judge advocates—review operations for compliance with applicable U.S. domestic and international law, including the law of armed conflict, and for consistency with the policies and orders of superiors in the military chain of command.

While not addressed to President-elect Trump specifically, this reads like an appeal to order in the face of a incoming leader known and feared for his impulsiveness and bombast. Should it calm fears about the concentrated power about to be handed to an inexperienced and potentially trigger-happy president-elect? Yes and no. Here are two reasons why it should not.

First, the Obama administration—while showing a commitment to both multilateralism and international law that its predecessor did not—acknowledges constraining standards while stopping just short of pledging to follow them. This sentence appears early in the report’s discussion of targeting: “The U.S. Government makes extensive efforts to ensure that its targeting efforts comply with all applicable international obligations, domestic laws, and policies.” The hole in the language is deliberate; “extensive efforts” are not a commitment. It is the presidency protecting itself.

Since 9/11, the presidency—regardless of party—has operated on permanent wartime footing and chafed at any constraint on its ability to project power quickly. There are strategic justifications for this. The result, however, is that concentrated power has accumulated, and is now to be handed to the least qualified incoming president in the nation’s history.

Second, the Obama administration promulgated its standards using Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) governing the use of force. A PPG is just that—presidential. President-elect Trump will have the right and ability to supplant President Obama’s procedures. The report’s call for the National Security Council to update and release it at least annually is the Obama administration’s effort to be on the record attempting to influence how force is used and information about its use is disseminated. Ultimately, however, Obama cannot compel his successor to follow his recommendations.

That said, does the report have value? Yes. It is an on-the-record standard to which the Trump administration military policies may be held to account. It is an explicit acknowledgment that the nature of the fight against extremism and terrorism has changed the way presidents make decisions about force. It is an effort to codify precedents as presidential power changes hands to support consistency in decision-making.

Finally, it is an invitation to the public to demand more information about military decision-making from the incoming administration. Think tanks and NGOs took up the mantle of oversight on drones during Obama’s tenure. America benefits from a NGO sector, outfitted with expertise from former government officials, that keeps a watchful analytical eye on those in power. They do so as watchdogs, and in effort to influence government action. As the Trump administration takes office, these roles has never been more important.

The post Obama, Trump and Drones appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

L’US Navy a choisi le nom de Columbia pour la tête de série de ses futurs sous-marins nucléaires lanceurs d’engins. 12 unités de ce type remplaceront les 14 actuels SNLE du type Ohio. Mis en service entre 1984 et 1997, ces derniers mesurent de 170 mètres de long, affichent un déplacement de 18.750 tonnes en plongée et peuvent mettre en œuvre 24 missiles balistiques Trident 2-D5. 

La construction de l’USS Columbia (SSBN 826) devrait débuter en 2021, en vue d'une mise en service d'ici 2031. La livraison du dernier bâtiment de cette classe est attendue en 2039.

• Lire la suite de Le futur SNLE américain sera baptisé USS Columbia

On December 13, Donald Trump nominated ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State. Tillerson’s nomination raised questions on whether the top executive of one of the world’s largest corporations (5th largest by market cap, to be exact) can put the American national interest above business interests. Questions of incompatibility aside, what weighs even heavier are the accusations of Tillerson’s connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump’s pick is the most recent of many controversial choices for top jobs in his administration. The President-elect’s inner circle has long been accused of harboring pro-Putin and pro-Russian attitudes reflected in their cabinet picks and associates.

For example, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has been investigated by the FBI over connections to a high-ranking pro-Russian politician in Ukraine, from whom he allegedly received a $12.7 million cash payment. Future Trump national security advisor General Michael Flynn attended a dinner in Moscow in 2015 and was seated at Putin’s table, while long-time Trump supporter Roger Stone admitted to having had “back channel” communication with Wikileaks head Julian Assange.

Stone boasted on Twitter that Hillary campaign chairman John Podesta would have some “time in the barrel,” and Podesta’s emails were hacked by Russian groups and then posted on Wikileaks. Trump himself has on multiple occasions showered Putin with praise, a favor that was reciprocated by the Russian President.

At the same time Trump is cozying up to Russia, he is taking an increasingly rougher tone with China. As he has made abundantly clear while on the campaign trail, he considers China a serious—if not the most serious—threat to the United States.

First and foremost, he identified China as an economic threat, bent on undermining America’s global economic pre-eminence by inventing the concept of global warming in order to reduce the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. He also repeatedly blasted China for “taking our jobs” and accused the Middle Kingdom of “illegal dumping.” Add to that the fact that Trump reversed in early December decades of established U.S. policy towards China by accepting a congratulatory call from Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen. After the call, he openly called into question America’s adherence to China’s “One China” policy.

If Trump advisors are indeed right, and the phone call with Taiwan was long planned, then the President-elect’s reasoning behind staffing the White House with pro-Russian hacks becomes quite clear: breaking apart the budding Moscow-Beijing alliance.

Seen in this light, aligning with Russia is not an expression of subservience to Vladimir Putin, but instead a strategic calculus of the Trump administration meant to contain China. Due to geographical proximity and historical animosity, Russia and China are acutely aware of the threat they pose to each other. In Trump’s view, faced with a revisionist Beijing, Moscow and Washington are natural allies.

China has always been suspicious of Russia’s intentions, because Moscow remains firmly anchored in the West. In the words of a Chinese academic, “If the next U.S. president shows more respect to Russia and is less tough toward Moscow, the Kremlin’s ‘turn to the East’ will very likely swing to the West.”

It seems that time has come. While Trump has indicated that he is hoping for more engagement against China from regional allies, especially Japan, some of America’s allies no longer seem to be inclined to follow Washington’s lead. When the Australian government declined to comment on Trump’s overtures to Taiwan, citing “national interest” as justification, eyebrows were raised in astonishment. But when looking at the economic data it makes sense: Australia is the “developed world’s most-China dependent economy”, owing much of its 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth to Beijing’s booming demand for commodities.

This helps to explain a string of pro-Chinese decisions taken by Malcolm Turnbull, from agreeing to a 99-year Chinese lease of parts of the Port of Darwin to rejecting a $40 billion Japanese bid to build Australia’s new submarine fleet. With China being the most important trading partner for Australia, it appears that Beijing has made its influence in Australia stick. For incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, China’s growing clout in Australia and across the Asia-Pacific will make strengthening U.S. alliances with trusted allies like Japan a priority.

For both the U.S. and Russia, strategic alignment is a way to keep the looming China threat in check. While Trump will likely disengage from Europe, he is likely to continue to focus on the Asia-Pacific and China’s containment. Thus, the strategic encirclement that China suspected the U.S. would pursue under Obama’s pivot to Asia will continue, albeit in an altered form – not primarily via the control of Pacific island chains by the U.S. and its allies, but through Beijing’s immediate neighbor, Russia.

However, the degree to which this new partnership with the Kremlin will work out remains to be seen. America’s new alliance comes with many unknowns. Whether Putin can really be regarded a trustworthy ally is debatable, and whether Chinese President Xi Jinping will sit quietly through provocations amid a new serious strategic challenge may be called into doubt as well. Playing the “Russia card” against China the same way Nixon erstwhile played the “China card” against the Soviet Union remains a high-stakes gamble.

 

The post Trump’s Great Game: Courting Russia to Contain China appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.